this  book  on  or  before  the 
latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

U.  of  I.  Library 


P1AR  20 

J  r 

CD  X 

K >W 

CCT  2  1  m 

1 7 

11148-S 

THE  SITUATION 

AN  ADDRESS  DELIVERED 

AT  THE  ANNUAL  MEETING  OF 

The  National  Civil-Service  Reform  League, 

AUGUST  4,  1886 , 


BY 


HON.  GEORGE  WILLIAM  CURTIS. 


NEW  YORK: 

PUBLISHED  FOR  THE 

NATIONAL  CIVIL-SERVICE  REFORM  LEAGUE, 
1886. 


Publications  of  the  National  League. 

Proceedings  at  the  Annual  Meeting  of  the  National  Civil-Service 


Reform  League,  1882,  with  address  by  George  William  Curtis. 


Per  copy,  10  cts. 

The  same  for  1883. 

Per  100, 

Per  copy,  10  cts. 

• 

$7  50 

The  same  for  1884. 

Per  copy,  10  cts. 

Per  100, 

$7  50 

The  same  for  1885. 

Per  copy,  10  cts. 

Per  100, 

$7  50 

The  same  for  1886. 

Per  copy,  8  cts. 

Per  100, 

0 

0 

>-0 

The  Year’s  Work  in  Civil  Service  Reform.  (Address  of  1884.)  By 
George  William  Curtis.  Per  copy,  3  cts.  Per  100,  .  $2  50 

Civil-Service  Reform  under  the  present  National  Administration. 
(Address  of  1885.)  By  George  William  Curtis.  Per  copy,  3  cts. 

Per  100,  . . $2  50 

The  Situation.  (Address  of  1886.)  By  George  William  Curtis.  Per 
copy,  3  cts.  Per  100  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  $2  50 

Address  to  the  Voters  of  the  United  States.  By  George  William 
Curtis.  Per  copy,  1  ct.  Per  100,  .....  75  cts. 

The  Selection  of  Laborers.  By  James  M.  Bugbee  of  the  Mass.  C. 

S.  Commission.  Per  copy,  2  cts.  Per  100,  .  .  $1  25 

The  s^me  in  German.  Per  copy,  2  cts.  Per  100  .  .  $1  25 

Constitution  of  the  National  Civil-Service  Reform  League. 

Also  a  few  copies  of  some  early  publications. 

PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  ASSOCIATION. 

II.  The  Beginning  of  the  Spoils  System  in  the  National  Gov¬ 
ernment,  1829-30.  (Reprinted,  by  permission,  from  Parton’s 
“Life  of  Andrew  Jackson.”)  Per  copy,  5  cts.  Per  100,  $3  00 

III.  The  Spoils  System  and  Civil-Service  Reform  in  the  Custom- 

House  and  Post-Office  at  New  York.  By  Dorman  B.  Eaton. 
136  pages,  8vo.  Per  copy,  15  cts.  Per  100,  .  .  $10  00 

IV.  Civil-Service  Reform  in  the  New  York  Custom-House.  By 

Willard  Brown.  Per  copy,  5  cts.  Per  100,  .  .  .  $3  00 

V.  Term  and  Tenure  of  Office.  By  Dorman  B.  Eaton.  Per  copy,  25  cts. 
Second  edition,  abridged.  Per  copy,  15  cts  Per  100,  .  $10  00 

VTI.  The  Danger  of  an  Office-Holding  Aristocracy.  By  E.  L. 

Godkin.  Per  copy,  5  cts.  Per  100,  .  .  .  $3  00 

What  the  Competitive  Examinations  really  are.  Per  copy,  3  cts. 
Per  100, . $2  00 


THE  SITUATION 


i 

AN  ADDRESS  DELIVERED 


AT  THE  ANNUAL  MEETING  OF 


The  National  Civil-Service  Reform  League, 


AUGUST  4 ,  1SS6, 


BY 

HON.  GEORGE  WILLIAM  GURUS. 


NEW  YORK: 

PUBLISHED  FOR  THE 

NATIONAL  CIVIL-SERVICE  REFORM  LEAGUE, 
1886. 


\ 


PRESS  OF 

WILLIAM  S.  GOTTSBERGER 


THE  SITUATION. 


The  earliest  historic  legend  of  the  State  in  which  we  are 
assembled  is  that  of  the  Indian  greeting  to  Roger  Williams..  As 
he  coasted  along  the  western  shore  of  the  Seekonk  river  at  the 
head  of  the  bay,  he  heard  suddenly  a  greeting  in  his  native 
tongue.  “  What  cheer?  Netop,  what  cheer?”  It  was  the 
voice  of  friendly  Indians  welcoming  him  to  the  State  that  he 
founded,  and  which,  remembering  his  courage  and  his  faith,  has 
wisely  chosen  for  its  emblem  the  anchor,  and  for  its  legend,  the 
words,  “  in  God  we  hope.”  If  now  mindful  of  the  cause  which 
brings  us  to  the  shores  of  Narragansett  bay,  we  should  ask  each 
other  of  Civil-Service  Reform,  what  cheer  brothers,  what  cheer  ? 
I,  for  one,  should  answer  promptly,  better  and  better  cheer ; 
such  cheer,  indeed,  as  no  association  like  ours  ever  enjoyed  at  its 
sixth  annual  meeting;  never  were  the  skies  so  bright,  never  was 
the  future  so  fair. 

I  am  fully  aware  of  the  other  view  which  is  vociferously 
urged.  I  read  every  day  in  some  newspaper  that  Civil-Service 
Reform  is  now  at  last  finally  dead.  But  I  have  heard  it  so  often 
and  have  been  so  constantly  bidden  to  the  obsequies,  that  I  am 
very  skeptical  of  its  actual  decease.  It  is  now  twenty  years  since 
that  worthy  son  of  Rhode  Island,  Thomas  Allen  Jenckes,  opened 


, 


4 


in  Congress  the  great  debate  for  reform,  and  at  least  half  a  dozen 
times  since  that  happy  day  I  have  heard  that  reform  was  as  dead 
as  the  alien  and  sedition  laws  of  the  United  States  bank.  When 
Congress  refused  the  appropriation  to  President  Grant  I  was 
sympathetically  assured  that  the  pretty  bubble  had  burst.  When 
President  Hayes  felt  that  his  views  were  those  of  a  small  minority, 
but  an  exceedingly  awkward  squad  for  the  party  managers,  and 
his  action  accordingly  was  very  cautious,  it  was  announced  again 
that  the  humbug  was  exploded.  When  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives  in  1882  for  half  an  hour  merrily  kicked  and  cuffed  reform 
and  cut  down  the  appropriation  which  President  Arthur  had 
asked,  it  was  evident  to  many  delighted  observers  that  Sunday- 
school  politics  were  “  played  out.”  When  a  large  body  of  Civil 
Service  Reformers  supported  Mr.  Cleveland  for  the  presidency, 
it  was  angrily  alleged  that  reform  was  betrayed  and  murdered  in 
the  house  of  its  false  friends.  When  inexplicable  appointments, 
and  arbitrary  removals,  and  an  apparent  want  of  consistent 
adherence  to  principle  have  been  pointed  out  uuder  the  present 
administration,  the  situation  has  been  described  as  a  wild 
saturnalia  of  spoils  around  the  corpse  of  reform.  Indeed  one 
thing  of  which  in  many  willing  minds  there  has  been  no  doubt 
ever  since  the  reform  was  born,  is  that  reform  is  dead.  If  it  were 
so,  it  would  certainly  prove  that  death  loves  a  shining  mark,  and 
he  is  supposed  to  be  a  sure  marksman.  But  this  time  he  has 
missed. 

Public  opinion  upon  this  subject  was  never  so  aroused,  so 
enlightened,  and  so  determined.  The  wholesome  purpose  and 
sound  reason  of  reform  were  never  so  generally  and  so  clearly 
perceived,  and  it  was  never  so  plainly  a  pressing  public  question. 


s 


There  was  never  such  a  rattling  of  amazement  and  consternation 
among  the  dry  bones  of  Bourbon  party  politics;  never  such  a 
hysterical  protestation  upon  the  part '  of  peddlers  of  patronage 
that  the  deluge  would  not  be  much  of  a  shower  after  all;  never 
such  shuddering  certainty  in  the  minds  of  political  money 
changers,  that  the  people  will  presently  scourge  them  with  wrath 
out  of  the  temple  of  liberty.  Political  assessments,  the  blackmail 
imposed  by  party  freebooters  upon  the  employes  of  the  people, 
have  been  in  great  part  suppressed,  and  have  been  permanently 
stigmatized  as  despicable.  Arbitrary  removals  which  were  the 
accepted  and  unquestioned  practice  of  the  public  service,  have  not 
ceased,  indeed,  but  they  are  now  instantly  challenged  and 
exposed,  and  there  is  a  distinct  public  sense  of  wrong  in  the  act 
and  a  disposition  to  deal  rigorously  with  any  administration  which 
is  guilty  of  the  offence.  The  recent  debates  in  Congress  upon 
the  subject  of  reform,  the  eloquent  silence  of  many  leaders,  no 
less  than  the  hostile  speech  of  others;  the  eagerness  on  one  side 
to  prove  falsity  to  reform  against  the  other,  and  the  recrimination 
that  the  pot  when  in  power  had  been  as  black  as  it  now 
alleged  the  administration  kettle  to  be ;  the  acrimony,  the  sullen¬ 
ness,  the  avoidance  of  the  vote  on  one  side ;  the  banter,  the 
accusation,  and  the  sarcasm  on  the  other,  all  showed  in  that 
assembly,  which  talks  always  with  its  ear  turned  toward  the 
people,  a  universal  consciousness  that  it  was  dealing  with  a  ques¬ 
tion  in  which  the  country  was  profoundly  interested,  and  which 
would  exert  a  powerful  influence  upon  the  election. 

It  was  quite  right.  The  pricked  bubble,  the  exploded  hum- 
Dug,  the  played  out  Sunday  school  game,  the  aristocratic  device, 
the  monarchical  plot,  the  trick  to  retain  Republicans  in  office,  the 


6 


un-American  reform,  slain  and  thrice  slain,  and  dead  as  the  Bank 
or  the  Embargo,  will  be  for  the  first  time  a  leading  question  in 
the  Congressional  elections  of  this  year.  On  one  side  support  of 
the  administration  will  mean  support  of  reform;  on  the  other, 
opposition  to  the  administration  will  mean  denunciation  of  its 
infidelity  to  reform.  The  democratic  candidate  this  year  need 
not  protest  the  soundness  of  his  views  upon  State  sovereignty  and 
a  revision  of  the  tariff,  nor  solemnly  affirm  his  Jeffersonian 
principles,  but  he  must  announce  his  approval  or  disapproval  of 
the  President’s  course  and  so  define  distinctly  his  position  upon 
reform.  The  Republican  need  not  dilate  upon  protection  and  a 
gold  standard,  a  free  ballot  and  a  fair  count;  but  while  he  is 
faithful  to  Republican  traditions  he  must  declare  unequivocally 
for  appointments  by  proved  merit,  and  in  an  open  and  free  com¬ 
petition.  Let  the  Democratic  candidate  who  holds  with  Senator 
Vance  that  reform  is  unconstitutional  and  un- Democratic,  and 
consequently  that  the  President  betrays  his  trust  in  tolerating 
Republicans  in  the  Civil  Service,  say  so  frankly  and  appeal  for 
judgment.  Let  the  Republican  candidate  who  holds  with  Senator 
Ingalls  that  the  Civil  Service  is  spoils,  that  the  spoils  belong  to 
the  victors,  and  that  Republicans  ought  to  scorn  to  serve  the 
country  under  a  Democratic  administration,  say  with  equal  frank¬ 
ness  that  the  President  betrays  his  party  trust  if  he  does  not  turn 
out  Republicans.  If  the  nominating  conventions  should  omit  to 
secure  such  an  expression  from  candidates  for  Congress  the  Na¬ 
tional  Reform  League  will  undertake  to  supply  the  omission. 
At  last,  said  Wendell  Phillips  in  i860,  after  thirty  years  of  anti¬ 
slavery  agitation, — at  last  the  slave  has  elected  a  President  of  the 
United  States.  In  1882  at  the  annual  meeting  of  this  League 


7 


it  resolved  that  for  the  first  time  candidates  for  Congress  should 
be  asked  to  express  their  views  upon  reform ;  and  now  after  a 
short  but  vigorous  agitation  of  four  years  it  is  evident  that  under 
the  necessary  conditions  of  the  election  of  this  autumn  Civil-Ser¬ 
vice  reform  will  be  a  distinct  issue  in  the  election  of  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States. 

It  is  by  such  facts  and  such  a  situation  that  the  progress  of 
reform  is  to  be  estimated.  Inconsistencies  and  failures  in  the 
practical  enforcement  of  the  principle  may  be  deplored,  but  the 
advance  of  reform  itself  is  now  beyond  the  control  of  any  ad¬ 
ministration.  This  year  or  another  year  may  be  a  bad  year  for 
fruit,  but  none  the  less  the  fruit  trees  are  rooted  fast  in  a  kindly 
soil,  and  abundant  and  noble  fruit  is  sure.  The  important  ques¬ 
tion  is  not  whether  this  or  that  executive  officer  respects  the  law, 
but  whether  the  public  mind  is  interested  and  aroused.  The 
prosperity  of  reform  lies  in  the  condition  of  public  opinion. 
Every  good  reform  is  a  public  conviction  before  it  is  a  law,  and 
the  first  demonstration  of  active  and  serious  opposition  is  the 
unfailing  sign  that,  in  the  language  of  religious  revivals,  the  public 
mind  is  under  conviction.  In  my  first  address  before  the  League, 
four  years  ago,  I  said  that  the  battle  with  the  spoils  system  had 
begun  in  earnest.  In  its  nature  it  must  be  an  obstinate  and 
strenuous  contest.  We  are  in  the  midst  of  it  now.  The  very 
vigor  of  the  fight  shows  the  strength  both  of  the  reform  sentiment 
and  of  the  spoils  tradition.  We  have  never  anticipated,  I  am 
sure,  an  undisputed  victory.  We  have  never  supposed  that  we 
should  march  as  on  parade,  with  the  bands  playing  gaily,  straight 
across  the  field  of  battle.  We  know  too  well  the  power  of  the 
evil  entrenched  in  tradition  and  prejudice  and  ignorance  and  fierce 


8 


party  spirit  to  expect  that  the  acts  of  any  officer  or  the  course  of 
any  administration  which  was  not  especially  elected  upon  the 
reform  issue  and  for  the  purpose  of  reform,  however  friendly  to 
reform  they  might  be,  would  be  perfectly  consistent  and  reasonable 
and  free  from  reproach.  In  estimating  the  situation  we  do  not 
accept  on  the  one  hand  without  qualification  praise  of  its  own 
administration  from  a  party  which,  as  a  party,  has  shown  little 
sympathy  with  the  distinctive  policy  of  the  executive,  nor  on  the 
other  hand  can  we  heed  denunciation  of  the  reform  course  of  the 
administration  proceeding  from  the  opposition  party,  stimulated 
by  party  spirit  for  a  party  purpose,  and  not  intended  to  promote 
reform. 

This  League  is  the  only  organized  and  authentic  national 
representative  of  the  reform  sentiment.  I  challenge  any  man  to 
show  that  it  has  in  any  degree  or  at  any  time  betrayed  the  trust 
voluntarily  assumed  by  it,  with  the  approval  of  the  locally 
organized  friends  of  reform,  of  honestly  and  adequately  repre¬ 
senting  that  sentiment,  and  its  criticisms  and  demands  upon 
political  parties  and  public  men.  The  League  has  pandered  to 
no  personal  ambition,  to  no  party  purpose.  It  has  been  no  man’s 
instrument  nor  has  it  been  the  organ  of  any  faction.  Upon  the 
late  party  change  ot  administration,  on  behalf  of  the  friends  of 
reform  and  in  the  public  interest  the  League  addressed  the  newly- 
elected  President  earnestly  commending  to  him  the  interests  of 
reform,  and  in  a  forcible,  unequivocal  and  patriotic  strain  he 
responded,  expressing  the  sympathy  with  the  movement  which  he 
had  practically  proved  as  Governor  of  New  York,  pledging 
himself  to  the  enforcement  of  the  reform  law  in  good  faith,  and 
to  an  observance  of  its  spirit  in  selections  for  appointment  beyond 


9 


its  range.  A  year  and  five  months  of  his  administration  have  now 
passed,  and  the  time  has  arrived  when  a  general  survey  of  its 
action  npon  this  subject  and  of  the  condition  of  reform  under  his 
administration  is  practicable  and  desirable.  The  Executive  Com¬ 
mittee  of  the  League,  therefore,  recently  appointed  a  Committee 
of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  Chairman,  charged  with  the  duty 
of  reporting,  first,  concerning  the  enforcement  and  operation  of 
the  National  Civil-Service  law  :  second,  concerning  the  principles 
and  methods  followed  by  the  administration  in  making  appoint¬ 
ments,  removals,  and  suspensions :  and  third,  concerning  the  pro¬ 
gress  of  the  reformed  system  in  state  and  municipal  governments. 
The  report  of  the  committee  will  naturally  embrace  some  of  the 
topics  to  which  I  should  otherwise  allude  in  this  address.  But  I 
shall  leave  to  that  report  of  eminent  representatives  of  the  cause 
from  various  parts  of  the  country  to  state  authoritatively  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  League  upon  the  general  course  of  the  administration 
as  affecting  Civil-Service  Reform. 

Apart  from  the  details  of  the  enforcement  of  the  law  and  of 
executive  action  in  regard  to  appointments  and  removals,  there 
are  three  chief  points  of  interest  in  the  reform  history  of  the  year. 
First,  the  effort  in  Congress  to  annul  the  national  law ;  second, 
the  effort  to  destroy  the  efficiency  of  the  State  law  in  Massachus¬ 
etts  :  and  third,  the  introduction  of  the  reform  bill  of  Mr. 
Edmunds.  The  direct  assault  to  repeal  the  national  law  failed  in 
both  houses  of  Congress.  But  the  efforts  at  direct  repeal  were 
only  rockets  thrown  up  from  a  sinking  ship.  They  served  merely 
to  cast  a  momentary  light  upon  despair.  The  serious  attack  was 
of  another  kind.  It  was  a  proposition  to  make  the  payment  of 
the  salary  of  the  Civil-Service  Commissioners  contingent  upon  a 


IO 


change  of  rules  by  the  President  which  would  abolish  competition 
and  facilitate  partisan  appointment.  It  was  an  ingenious  scheme 
to  rebuke  the  President,  to  discredit  the  Civil-Service  Commission, 
and  to  nullify  the  reform  law.  The  fact  that  it  was  an  attack  by 
indirection,  sure  if  it  did  not  prosper  to  be  disposed  of  by  a  point 
of  order  and  without  a  record  of  the  vote,  showed  that  the  leaders 
doubted  its  success.  But  they  were  willing  to  try  the  assault  in 
order  to  prove  their  own  hostility  to  the  President  and  to  show 
to  their  constituents  that  they  were  guiltless  of  reform  and  would 
gladly  distribute  spoils  if  only  they  could.  In  this  last  purpose 
the  effect  succeeded,  but  not  in  rebuking  the  President  nor  in 
discrediting  the  Commission. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  the  cunning  method  of  the  attack  pre¬ 
vented  a  vote.  But  even  had  there  been  a  unanimous  adverse 
vote  it  would  have  shown  not  that  the  House  is  an  assembly  of 
reformers,  but  only  that  representatives  are  aware  of  the  quality 
and  extent  of  the  reform  sentiment  in  the  country.  How  little 
the  undoubted  desire  of  a  great  and  intelligent  public  sentiment 
practically  and  permanently  to  establish  the  reformed  system 
really  animates  Congress  is  shown  by  the  little  tricks  that  the 
House  tolerated  in  the  appropriation  bill  to  evade  the  reform  law. 
On  the  17th  of  June,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Randall,  the  House 
of  Representatives  reduced  the  number  of  clerks  within  the 
classified  service  in  the  Patent  Office  by  thirty,  and  increased  the 
number  of  skilled  laborers  at  $840  a  year  from  sixty-two  to 
ninety-two.  The  object  was  evident.  Examinations  are  not 
held  for  clerkships  of  less  than  an  annual  value  of  $900.  The 
so-called  skilled  laborers  of  the  Patent  Office,  though  employed 
chiefly  on  clerical  work,  have  not  been  treated  as  within  the 


II 


classified  service,  although  probably  they  fall  within  it.  The 
amendment  was  passed  by  the  House  without  a  division,  and 
was  accepted  by  the  Senate.  Congress  thus  snatched  a  few  small 
places  out  of  the  classified  service  and  threw  them  upon  the  heap 
of  spoils.  The  plea  is  that  a  few  thousands  of  dollars  are  saved. 
The  result  is  that  the  public  service  loses  trained  capacity,  the  law 
is  evaded,  the  public  offices  are  demoralized,  and  Congress  is 
disgraced  by  a  petty  trick. 

Such  a  trick  would  be  impossible  were  there  a  sincere  desire 
in  Congress  to  secure  reform.  But  there  was  no  positive  reform 
legislation  during  the  session,  and  nothing  in  the  action  of  either 
House  showed  any  serious  interest  in  the  subject.  Senator 
Hampton’s  bill  making  it  a  misdemeanor  for  a  Senator  or  Repre¬ 
sentative  to  recommend  or  solicit  appointments ;  Mr.  Willis’  to 
repeal  the  four  years’  law ;  Mr.  Long’s  to  repeal  the  tenure  of 
office  act ;  Mr.  Cutcheon’s  for  a  bureau  of  Civil-Service  appoint 
ments ;  Mr.  Bayne’s  for  the  election  of  certain  officers  by  the 
people ;  Mr.  Cox’s  for  an  equitable  classification  and  compensa¬ 
tion  of  certain  officers,  were  the  other  more  prominent  proposi¬ 
tions  affecting  the  Civil  Service  which  were  introduced.  Some 
sleep  in  committee,  some  were  reported,  none  have  become  laws. 
Whatever  may  be  the  assertion  of  party  managers,  nothing  shows 
so  conclusively  that  reform  is  in  no  proper  sense  the  policy  of 
either  of  the  great  parties  as  the  course  of  Congress.  No  leader 
in  either  House  is  an  aggressive  Civil-Service  Reformer.  No 
Senator  or  Representative  has  proposed  to  extend  the  scope  of 
the  reform  law.  Congress,  indeed,  is  plainly  conscious  of  the 
public  interest,  and  of  the  rapidly  increasing  pressure  of  the 
question.  But  it  is  both  apgry  and  bewildered.  The  shepherds 


12 


are  in  the  fog  and  hate  to  try  the  upward  path,  and  the  sheep  can 
only  bleat  plaintively  for  the  lost  pastures  of  patronage. 

But  while  the  negative  conduct  of  Congress  signally  illus¬ 
trates  the  indifference  of  party  politicians,  the  action  of  one  of 
the  chief  bureaus  of  administration  in  the  Treasury  Department 
happily  illustrates  the  results  of  sincere,  intelligent,  and  courage¬ 
ous  fidelity  to  reform.  The  bureau  of  printing  and  engraving 
controls  more  patronage  of  places  not  included  in  the  classified 
service  than  all  the  other  Treasury  bureaus  combined.  It  has 
been  notorious  as  the  refuge  of  parasites  of  the  most  unscrupulous 
spoilsmen,  and  an  investigating  committee  of  experts  in  the 
Treasury  of  the  same  party  with  the  chief  part  of  the  force 
employed  in  the  bureau,  reported  a  few  years  ago  that  the  vicious 
circle  of  lavish  appropriation  and  of  appointment  by  political 
influence  had  led  to  the  employment  of  a  force  which  in  some 
divisions  was  twice  and  in  others  three  times  as  large  as  was 
necessary,  and  that  more  than  half  the  force  in  the  bureau  might 
be  dispensed  with.  Soon  after  his  inauguration  President 
Cleveland  appointed  the  chairman  of  this  committee  to  be  chief 
of  the  bureau.  During  the  first  thirteen  months  of  his  control, 
ending  on  the  first  of  July,  there  have  been  but  seven  permanent 
original  appointments,  all  of  which  were  to  places  that  it  was 
absolutely  necessary  to  fill.  Three  persons  also  have  been 
appointed  in  the  place  of  relatives  who  had  broken  down  in  the 
service,  and  fifteen  of  the  most  deserving  of  the  employes  who  had 
been  discharged  in  order  to  reduce  the  force  have  been  recalled  to 
the  service  as  they  were  needed.  No  person  has  been  discharged 
for  political  reasons,  or  to  make  place  for  another.  Since  the  first 
of  March, .1885,  the  force  of  the  bureau  has  been  reduced  by  three 


i3 


hundred  persons.  Of  the  appropriations  made  for  its  support  for 
the  fiscal  year  1885  $73,000  were  returned  to  the  Treasury 
unused,  and  there  will  -  be  an  estimated  saving  of  at  least 
$175,000  in  the  appropriation  for  1886,  making  an  aggregate 
saving  of  about  $250,000  in  this  single  branch  of  the  Depart¬ 
ment  under  this  administration,  and  all  that  has  been  done  has 
received  the  most  cordial  support  of  Mr.  Manning,  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury.  This  is  Civil-Service  Reform.  This  bureau 
is  what  every  bureau  in  the  public  service  might  become  with 
incalculable  advantage  to  the  country,  to  political  morality,  and 
to  the  true  function  of  party  in  a  republic,  which  is  not  to  dis¬ 
tribute  patronage  but  to  determine  policy.  But  such  a  beneficient 
and  remarkable  administration  of  an  office  is  impossible  except 
upon  the  condition  that  happily  exists  in  this  bureau.  There 
must  be  at  the  head  of  the  office  the  same  thorough  belief  in 
reform,  the  same  ability  and  intelligence  and  courage  to  enforce  it 
which  distinguish  the  head  of  the  Bureau  of  Printing  and 
Engraving,  one  of  the  earliest  and  most  efficient  friends  of 
reform  in  the  country,  Mr.  Edward  O.  Graves. 

I  can  only  mention  the  second  point,  the  persistent  and 
significant  effort  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature,  by  an  over¬ 
whelming  majority,  practically  to  repeal  the  reform  law  of  that 
State  —  an  effort  which  was  eloquently  and  indignantly  opposed 
by  every  veteran  who  took  part  in  the  debate,  except  the  author 
of  the  bill,  and  which  was  happily  baffled  by  the  forcible  and 
conclusive  veto  of  Governor  Robinson.  The  frank  and  earnest 
opposition  of  the  veterans  proved  that  it  is  a  gross  dishopor  to 
the  men  who  offered  their  lives  in  defense  of  a  Union  founded 
upon  equal  rights  and  equal  laws  to  assert  that  not  content  with 


14 


the  consciousness  of  duty  well  done,  and  with  the  national 
gratitude  manifested  in  pensions,  in  homes  and  hospitals,  and 
in  friendly  preference  wherever  preference  is  justifiable,  they 
demand  the  repeal  of  equal  laws  carefully  designed  to  promote 
the  general  welfare  and  universally  acknowledged  to  be  effective 
to  that  end.  It  was  the  veterans  in  the  Massachusetts  Legisla¬ 
ture  who  opposed  the  repeal  of  the  reform  law,  not  the  politicians 
who  pressed  it,  who  truly  represented  the  spirit  which  inspired 
the  soldier  and  sailor  of  the  Union  from  Fort  Sumter  to 
Appomattox,  from  Dupont  and  Ward  to  Farragut  and  Porter. 

The  third  chief  incident  in  the  annals  of  reform  for  the  year 
is  the  bill  recently  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Senator  Edmunds. 
It  is  a  bill  of  great  importance,  into  the  general  discussion  of 
which  I  cannot  now  enter.  But  two  of  its  provisions  demand 
our  most  careful  attention,  for  while  this  League  seeks  the  repeal 
of  the  four  years’  law,  the  Edmunds  bill  proposes  to  re-enact  it ; 
and  while  the  League  would  leave  the  power  of  removal  to  the 
appointing  officer  and  destroy  the  motives  for  its  unjust  exercise, 
the  Edmunds  bill  would  confer  that  power  upon  the  United  States 
Judges.  The  passage  of  this  bill  would  confirm  and  perpetuate 
one  of  the  most  mischievous  abuses  in  the  government.  Miss 
Salmon,  in  her  History  of  the  Appointing  Power  of  the  President, 
is  not  extravagant  in  saying  of  the  four  years’  law,  “  Never  in  the 
whole  history  of  the  legislation  of  a  hundred  years  affecting  the 
appointing  power  has  so  disastrous  a  measure  been  enacted.”  It 
practically  places  the  whole  body  of  important  subordinate 
offices,  upon  which  depends  the  vast  ramification  of  minor 
employments,  at  the  disposal  of  the  President  during  his  term. 
It  enables  him  to  change  the  entire  force  of  the  Civil  Service 


i5 


without  the  odium  of  arbitrary  removal.  It  was,  indeed,  the 
four  years’  law  that  introduced  the  practice  of  such  removals  and 
began  the  sophistication'  and  corruption  of  public  sentiment 
which  are  revealed  in  the  familiar  assertion  that  a  clean  partisan 
sweep  of  the  public  service  is  the  intentional  and  logical  result 
of  an  election.  The  truth  is  otherwise.  Mr.  Randall,  the 
biographer  of  Jefferson  and  as  strong  an  anti-Federalist,  admits 
that  even  after  Jefferson’s  election  minor  offices  were  understood 
to  be  held  upon  the  constitutional  tenure  of  good  conduct,  and 
Mr.  Calhoun,  in  1835,  states  that  arbitrary  removals  were  of 
recent  date,  that  is  since  1820  when  the  four  years’  law  was 
passed.  Mr.  Benton  said  truly  that  the  expiration  of  the  term 
was  regarded  as  the  creation  of  a  vacancy  to  be  filled  by  a  new 
appointment,  and  in  1826,  six  years  after  the  passage  of  the  law, 
the  select  committee  of  the  Senate  recommended  its  repeal 
because  the  law  operated  against  its  own  intent  and  served  to 
turn  out  faithful  officers  instead  of  retaining  them. 

The  forecast  of  Jefferson  and  Madison  in  regard  to  the 
mischievous  results  of  the  four  years’  law  have  been  amply 
verified  by  experience.  It  has  been  one  of  the  great  bulwarks  of 
the  spoils  system  and  has  been  vigorously  defended  by  every  party 
buccaneer.  Even  when  there  has  been  no  party  change  of 
administration  the  vacation  of  the  offices  by  the  expiration  of  the 
term  has  opened  the  opportunity  for  gratifying  factional  feeling. 
In  1882  I  pointed  out  that  of  825  officers  whose  terms  had 
expired  in  nine  months  of  the  late  administration  nearly  half  had 
been  dropped  from  the  serviee.  If  825  offices,  nearly  one-quar¬ 
ter  of  the  3,400  or  3,500  subject  to  executive  nomination,  and 
filled  by  members  of  his  own  party,  had  not  been  vacated  by  law 


i6 


within  the  space  of  nine  months  is  it  probable  that  the  President 
would  have  vacated  them  within  that  time  either  by  his  own  act 
or  by  an  appeal  to  a  Judge  ?  Is  it  conceivable  that  of  those  825 
officers  nearly  one-haif  were  unfit  for  their  positions  ?  Is  it 
doubtful  that  the  most  desperate  and  unscrupulous  of  partisans 
in  every  political  contest  are  officers  who  know  that  the  chance 
of  their  own  support  and  that  of  their  families  depends  upon  the 
result  of  an  election.  Manly  independence  and  self-respect  must 
be  necessarily  destroyed  and  the  public  service  consequently 
demoralized  by  the  knowledge  that  honesty  and  ability  and 
experience  and  industry  and  efficiency  will  be  of  no  avail  to 
retain  men  in  their  employments  if  a  party  administration  or  the 
factional  control  of  their  own  party  should  change  at  the  end  of 
four  years.  A  limited  term  for  the  minor  appointive  offices  is  a 
direct  incitement  to  intrigue  and  fraud  and  falsehood.  It  is  a 
folly  unknown  in  private  business,  and  it  deprives  public  employ¬ 
ment  of  that  incentive  to  diligence  and  efficiency,  and  destroys 
that  mainspring  of  honorable  self  respect,  the  peaceful  conscious¬ 
ness  that  success  depends  upon  merit  and  not  on  favor,  and  that 
fidelity  and  competency  are  the  guarantee  of  continued  employ¬ 
ment  and  promotion.  After  the  discussions  of  recent  years  the 
deliberate  re-enactment  by  Congress  of  the  four  years’  law  would 
plainly  contemplate  and  sanction  a  clean  sweep  of  the  service 
with  every  party  change  of  administration  as  fast  as  official  terms 
should  expire.  The  President  would  be  invited  by  the  law  itself 
to  reward  his  own  partisans  as  every  day  placed  offices  at  his 
disposal.  The  Civil  Service  would  become,  with  the  express 
approval  of  Congress,  a  mere  treasury  of  party  spoils. 

The  Edmunds  bill  is  in  fact  a  bill  to  enact  and  legitimate  all 


*7 


,the  evils  of  a  clean  sweep.  Would  they  be  obviated  by  the 
extraordinary  provision  of  judicial  suspension  and  removal,  which 
is  another  proposition  of  the  bill  ?  I  think  not.  This  provision 
would  at  most  prevent  only  the  arbitrary  dismissal  of  incumbents 
during  their  terms.  But  it  would  not  affect  the  essential  evil  of  a 
four  years’  law,  which  is  automatic  removal,  removal  by  the 
expiry  of  the  term.  If  dismissal  without  reason  during  a  brief 
term  is  wrong,  dismissal  without  reason  at  the  end  of  such  a  term 
cannot  be  justified  upon  any  sound  business  principle.  Reform, 
as  we  understand  it,  seeks  to  take  the  whole  non-political  public 
service  out  of  politics.  But  the  Edmunds  bill  thrusts  it  into 
politics.  There  is  nothing  in  the  provision  for  judicial  suspension 
or  removal  during  the  term  which  would  restrain  the  mischief  in 
the  least  degree.  The  service  would  be  necessarily  partisan,  and 
a  partisan  service  would  be  what  it  has  always  been,  the  most 
despotic,  unscrupulous,  and  debasing  of  party  machines.  It  is 
true  that  the  present  reform  law  leaves  the  executive  choice 
beyond  the  classified  service  entirely  untrammelled.  But  the 
spirit  of  the  law  forbids  the  abuse  both  of  the  power  of  removal 
and  of  appointment  throughout  the  unclassified  service,  while  its 
warmest  friends  seek  to  strengthen  the  reform  of  which  it  is  an 
active  agent  by  the  repeal  of  the  four  years’  law.  In  the  situation 
which  the  Edmunds  bill  would  invite  the  only  restraint  upon  the 
complete  prostitution  of  patronage  to  party  would  be  the  chance 
of  a  reform  President.  But  this  would  be  but  a  momentary 
relief,  and  the  chance  of  a  reform  President  would  certainly  not 
be  increased  by  the  unrestricted  power  of  filling  the  whole  public 
service  with  active  personal  partisans.  When  Madame  de  Stael 
said  to  the  Emperor  Alexander  that  a  despotism  may  be  bene- 


i8 


ficient,  he  answered  Yes,  Madame,  but  it  would  be  only  a  happy 
accident.  The  reform  of  the  Civil  Service  must  not  be  left  to  a 
happy  accident. 

But  while  the  method  of  removal  which  the  bill  provides 
would  not  remedy  the  immense  evil  which  the  bill  promotes,  what 
would  be  the  effect  upon  the  discipline  and  efficiency  of  the 
service  itself?  The  bill  provides  for  removal  for  cause  to  be 
determined  by  judicial  authority.  But  such  a  law  would  logically 
and  inevitably  affect  the  whole  service.  If  the  President  could 
remove  a  postmaster  only  for  cause  satisfactory  to  a  court  of  law, 
it  would  be  manifestly  unjust  to  permit  the  postmaster  to  remove 
a  clerk  without  cause  determined  with  similar  care.  The  result 
would  be  intolerable.  The  right  of  counsel  and  the  forms  of  law 
would  be  invoked,  the  whole  legal  machinery  of  mandamuses, 
injunctions,  certioraris,  and  the  rules  of  evidence  would  be  put  in 
play  to  displace  a  slovenly  postmaster,  or  on  the  other  hand  to 
keep  an  incompetent  clerk  at  his  desk  or  a  sleepy  watchman  on 
his  beat.  Cause  for  the  removal  of  a  small  collector,  or  a  letter 
carrier  in  the  post  office,  or  an  accountant  in  the  Custom  House 
would  be  presented  with  all  the  pomp  of  impeachment,  and 
established  like  a  high  crime  and  misdemeanor.  The  discipline 
of  the  service  upon  which  its  efficiency  depends  would  be  ruined. 
If  appointing  officers,  from  the  President  to  the  head  of  a  bureau, 
were  obliged  to  prove  negligence,  or  insolence,  or  want  of  quick¬ 
ness,  or  any  of  the  myriad  forms  of  inefficiency  in  a  subordinate 
as  he  would  prove  a  charge  of  theft  or  arson,  the  officer’s  good 
nature  would  recoil,  and  there  would  be  no  removals  except  for 
offenses  of  which  the  penal  law  takes  cognizance.  The  superior 
officers  would  endure  much  and  long  rather  than  bring  a  suit 


J9 


against  a  subordinate  for  unpunctuality  or  laziness;  official 
discipline  would  disappear,  and  the  efficiency  of  the  service  would 
be  fatally  impaired.  Moreover,  when  removal  should  depend 
upon  the  judgment  of  a  court,  removal  would  be  always  and 
justly  regarded  as  a  stigma  upon  character.  Removal  for  cause, 
therefore,  if  the  cause  were  to  be  decided  by  any  authority  but 
that  of  the  superior  officer,  instead  of  improving  would  swiftly 
and  enormously  enhance  the  cost  by  ruining  the  efficiency  of 
the  public  service,  by  destroying  subordination  and  making  every 
lazy  and  worthless  officer  or  clerk  twice  as  careless  and  incom¬ 
petent  as  before. 

I  do  not  indeed  forget  the  wanton  outrages  of  removal  in  the 
public  service,  nor  the  unhappiness  and  despair  which  they  pro¬ 
duce.  Undoubtedly  the  larger  part  of  the  personal  suffering  and 
injustice  arising  from  the  vicious  system  of  treating  the  public 
service  as  party  spoils  is  due  to  arbitrary  partisan  removal.  This 
wrong  is  not  disposed  of  by  saying  flippantly  that  the  persons 
removed  have  had  their  share  and  ought  to  give  way  for  others. 
This  is  merely  pleading  the  absurdity  known  as  rotation  in  office, 
which  as  a  principle  or  a  practice  in  the  minor  service  means 
nothing  whatever.  It  is  a  phrase  implying  an  equal  sharing  of 
public  places  among  the  people.  But  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
sharing  the  public  places  because  there  are  not  enough  for  all.  If 
everybody  is  to  be  paid  out  of  the  public  treasury  for  doing  his 
political  duty  it  is  obviously  absurd  to  permit  anybody  to  be  paid 
for  four  successive  years.  That  would  be  a  wicked  monopoly. 
Even  with  a  term  of  four  months  we  should  not  all  get  a  chance 
at  the  treasury,  and  the  four  years  cormorants  would  evidently 
take  the  bread  out  of  the  mouths  of  the  rest  of  us.  If  Tim  is 


20 


entitled  to  a  place  because  he  has  worked  for  the  party  so  is  Tom. 
And  upon  this  principle  of  rotation  if  there  are  not  places  for 
both  of  them,  all  the  Tims  who  are  appointed  ought  to  divide 
their  wages  with  all  the  Toms  for  whom  there  are  no  places. 
When  Silas  Wright  called  rotation  in  office  a  cardinal  Republican 
principle  let  us  hope  that  he  meant  rotation  in  offices  for  which 
the  constitution  provides  the  opportunity  of  rotation,  and  not  in 
the  vast  multitude  of  subordinate  employments  in  which  equal 
rotation  is  absolutely  impossible,  and  in  which  if  it  were  possible 
it  would  be  absurd. 

The  doctrine  of  rotation  in  office  is  justified  by  its  advocates 
upon  two  grounds  :  first,  that  there  should  be  no  vested  right  in 
office ;  and  second,  that  in  public  offices  there  is  always  a 
tendency  to  mere  routine,  which  operates  as  a  kind  of  dry  rot  of 
official  vigor  and  efficiency.  But  both  pleas  vanish  in  a  system 
where  the  power  of  removal  is  unrestricted.  No  man  holds  a 
vested  right  in  public  office  who  holds  as  in  private  business  at 
the  will  of  a  superior,  and  the  remedy  for  inefficiency  lies,  as  in 
all  other  well-conducted  business,  on  the  responsible  head  of  the 
office.  When  it  is  once  determined  that  public  business  shall  be 
transacted  like  private  business  the  question  of  removal  will  need 
no  such  grotesque  solution  as  that  of  the  Edmunds  bill.  The 
question  of  removing  a  private  book-keeper  or  engineer  is  not 
referred  to  a  court  of  law,  and  when  a  merchant’s  clerk  is 
inefficient  or  unsatisfactory  and  is  consequently  dismissed  he  does 
not  argue  before  a  United  States  Court  his  right  to  hold  his  place 
for  three  years  or  for  three  days  longer.  In  re-enacting  the  four, 
years’  term,  thereby  sanctioning  the  abuses  known  as  a  clean 
sweep  and  partisan  rotation  in  office,  and  in  separating  the 


21 


executive  power  of  removal  from  the  executive  power  of  appoint¬ 
ment,  the  bill  of  Mr.  Edmunds  violates  what  we  believe  to  be 
cardinal  conditions  of  thorough  reform  in  the  Civil  Service. 

There  is  one  other  plea  for  rotation  in  office  which  is  the 
final  defence  of  the  system  that  makes  spoils  of  the  public  service. 
It  is  asserted  that  our  Government  is  a  government  of  party,  and 
that  thorough  party  organization  and  effective  party  diligence 
would  be  impossible  without  the  reward  of  place.  It  is  contended 
that  the  spur  of  party  ambition  in  great  party  leaders,  in  Pitt  or 
Fox,  in  Clay  or  Calhoun,  in  Gladstone  or  Disraeli,  is  the  desire 
of  reaching  great  place  to  direct  an  imperial  policy.  If  Clay 
may  properly  aspire  to  be  President  and  claim  the  Presidency  as 
a  reward  of  illustrious  party  service,  why  should  the  same  desire 
and  the  same  claim  in  a  small  and  humble  degree  be  denied  to 
the  follower  of  Clay  who  cannot  make  a  speech,  but  who  can 
bring  out  the  voters  ?  This  is  a  plausible  plea,  but  even  when 
sincere  it  totally  misconceives  the  facts.  In  a  free  country 
undoubtedly  political  ambition  is  the  ambition  to  govern,  and 
when  great  questions  arise  and  the  country  divides  upon  great 
policies  of  government  those  who  by  resistless  argument  and 
burning  appeal  successfully  mould  public  opinion  are  naturally 
placed  where  they  can  make  that  conviction  law  and  enforce  it  in 
administration.  This  is  the  legitimate  result  of  the  successful 
appeal  of  political  leaders  to  the  country.  But  neither  Clay  nor 
Van  Buren  nor  any  other  American  citizen  could  claim  the 
Presidency  on  any  ground  whatever,  and  to  argue  that  a  man 
who  brings  out  the  voters  and  “  treats  the  boys  ”  and  “  runs  the 
machine  ”  should  be  set  to  appraising  muslins,  or  weighing  spices, 
or  keeping  books  in  a  public  office  upon  the  same  principle  that  a 


22 


party  leader  is  called  to  organize  the  measures  of  the  policy  which 
he  has  proposed  and  which  the  country  has  approved,  is  to  insult 
the  public  common  sense. 

The  legitimate  and  healthy  contest  of  parties  in  a  republic 
is  not  to  be  deprecated.  It  is  the  controversy  of  principles,  the 
argument  of  policies,  the  great  contention  to  which  the  political 
genius  of  the  English-speaking  race  especially  inclines.  But 
patronage  destroys  legitimate  party  action,  and  the  reckless  party 
spirit,  against  which  Washington  bequeated  us  his  last  and  most 
solemn  warning,  constantly  strives  to  substitute  personal  and 
private  ends  for  public  purposes,  and  to  make  party  contest  a 
struggle  for  the  public  money  in  the  emoluments  of  petty  place 
instead  of  a  great  appeal  to  the  country  for  a  public  policy. 
Thus  the  spoils  system  instead  of  promoting  the  just  objects  of 
party  degrades  and  demoralizes  party  itself,  and  destroys  its  true 
function.  To  say  that  the  distribution  of  non-political  places  as 
rewards  among  a  few  parasites  of  politicians  whom  the  parasites 
hold  in  higher  place,  is  essential  to  party,  is  false  because  it 
destroys  the  legitimate  reason  of  party.  But  to  plead  that  it  is 
indispensable  to  general  and  active  interest  in  politics  is  to  argue 
against  facts  and  experience  as  well  as  against  reason. 

The  first  great  party  change  of  administration  in  our  own 
history  followed  the  election  of  Jefferson.  In  less  than  ten  years 
this  party  had  prevailed  over  the  party  of  Washington  and  Jay 
and  Hamilton,  and  was  thoroughly  organized,  enthusiastic,  and 
triumphant.  But  it  had  advanced  to  national  supremacy,  not 
only  without  the  control  of  the  patronage,  but  without  the  hope 
of  it.  Not  only  had  it  no  such  excuse  for  assessing  or  such 
means  of  disciplining  its  members,  but  there  was  no  promise  or 


23 


general  expectation  of  obtaining  place  by  a  clean  sweep  of 
Federal  office-holders.  “  Some  removals,”  said  Jefferson,  “  I 
know  must  be  made.  They  must  be  as  few  as  possible,  done 
gradually,  and  bottomed  on  some  malversation  or  inherent  dis¬ 
qualification.  Good  men  to  whom  there  is  no  objection  but  a 
difference  of  political  opinion,  practised  on  only  so  far  as  the  right 
of  a  private  citizen  will  justify,  are  not  proper  subjects  of  removal.” 
These  were  Jeffersonian  principles.  They  are  absolutely  and 
directly  opposed  to  the  Jacksonian  principle,  to  the  victors  belong 
the  spoils  of  the  enemy.  These  are  the  principles  of  Washington 
as  well  as  Jefferson;  the  principles  of  true  Democracy  not  in  the 
party  sense  but  in  that  sense  in  which  every  true  American  is  a 
Democrat.  Reform  in  the  first  party  change  of  administration 
did  not  mean  turning  out  honest  and  efficient  postmasters,  and 
night  watchmen  and  messengers  as  rascals.  It  meant  strict  con¬ 
struction  of  the  Constitution,  restriction  of  national  powers,  the 
fostering  of  State  sovereignty,  reduction  of  taxes,  and  economy 
and  simplicity  in  government.  It  did  not  mean  a  clean  sweep 
of  minor  places,  for  there  were  fewer  places  upon  the  national 
register  when  Jefferson  was  inaugurated  than  there  are  now  upon 
that  of  the  New  York  Custom  House  alone.  That  single  fact 
proves  the  absurd  untruth  of  the  assertion  that  the  prospect  of 
spoils  is  the  spring  of  party  activity. 

The  election  which  just  aroused  and  shaken  the  British 
Empire  from  sea  to  sea,  and  which  the  London.  Times  said  was  to 
determine  the  most  momentous  issue  ever  decided  by  a 
general  election  in  England,  is  a  signal  illustration  of  the 
legitimate  contest  of  party.  It  was  a  tremendous  controversy 
upon  a  great  national  question.  Every  intelligent  Englishman, 


24 


and  Scotchman,  and  Irishman  was  as  earnestly  interested 
in  that  election  as  every  patriotic  American  was  absorbed  in 
the  great  contentions  that  preceded  and  accompanied  our 
war  for  the  Union.  The  whole  world  watched  the  conflict 
and  anticipated  with  eagerness  the  result.  Does  any  American 
suppose  that  it  was  a  struggle  for  the  post  offices,  and  that  it 
would  have  been  a  very  languid  election  except  for  the  prospect 
of  small  clerkships,  messengerships,  and  a  clean  sweep  ?  Mr. 
Gladstone  answered  him  long  ago,  “  We  limit  to  a  few  scores  of 
persons  the  removals  and  appointments  on  these  occasions,”  and 
again,  “  We  have  abandoned  that  power  (of  filling  the  minor 
places),  we  have  thrown  every  one  of  them  open  to  competition;” 
and  he  adds  :  “  And  in  order  that  the  public  service  might  be, 
indeed,  the  public  service;  in  order  that  we  might  not  have 
among  the  civil  officers  of  the  State  that  which  we  complained  of 
in  the  army,  namely,  that  the  service  was  not  the  property  of  the 
nation  but  of  the  officers,  we  have  now  been  enabled  to  remove 
the  barriers  of  nomination,  patronage,  jobbing,  favoritism  in 
whatever  form;  and  every  man  belonging  to  the  people  of 
England,  if  he  so  please  to  fit  his  children  for  the  position  of  com¬ 
peting  for  places  in  the  public  service,  may  do  it  entirely 
irrespective  of  the  question  what  is  his  condition  in  life,  or  the 
amount  of  means  with  which  he  may  happen  to  be  or  not  to  be 
blessed.” 

These  words  describe  the  great  purpose  of  this  League,  a 
purpose  which  with  every  day  is  more  widely  approved  by  the 
country,  and  is  therefore  constantly  nearer  accomplishment. 
There  is  nothing  so  essentially  Republican,  nothing  so  distinct¬ 
ively  Democratic  as  Civil-Service  Reform.  The  measures  which 


25 


the  practical  progress  of  reform  now  requires  are  the  rapid  and 
steady  extension  of  the  classified  service  into  every  branch  of  the 
administration  to  which  its  principles  properly  apply ;  the  repeal 
of  the  four  years’  law  and  the  summary  removal  of  officers  who 
evade  or  defy  the  letter  or  the  spirit  of  the  reform  law,  or  inter¬ 
fere  in  nominations  and  elections.  The  unmistakable  evidence  of 
determined  purpose  in  the  superior  officer  is  felt  by  every  cabin 
boy  on  the  ship,  every  private  in  the  ranks,  and  it  is  the 
most  effective  moral  tonic,  whether  in  an  actual  battle  or  in 
the  peaceful  controversies  of  reform.  Every  man,  whether  in 
public  place  or  in  private  life,  who  believes  that  a  thorough 
correction  of  the  dangerous  abuses  of  patronage  is  indispensable, 
and  who  holds  that  a  system  of  the  public  service  which 
was  wise  and  practicable  under  President  Washington  is 
practicable  and  wise  under  President  Cleveland  or  any  other 
President,  but  who  comprehends  also  the  necessary  bitterness  and 
tenacity  of  the  contest  in  which  we  are  engaged,  may  well 
ponder  the  remark  of  the  Yankee  to  his  antagonist,  “  Wal,  I 
’spose  you’re  pretty  ugly,  but  I  cal’late  I’m  a  darned  site  uglier 
If  there  is  any  cabin  boy  on  our  ship,  or  any  private  in  our 
ranks,  who  is  not  full  of  that  spirit  and  who  does  not  already 
hear  the  bugles  of  victory  in  bis  heart,  I  do  not  know  where  to 
look  for  him. 


. 


. 


- 


Daniel  Webster  and  the  Spoils  System.  An  extract  from  Senator 
Bayard’s  oration  at  Dartmouth  College,  June,  1882.  Per  copy,  3  cts. 
Per  100,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  $1  $o 

The  “Pendleton  Bill.”  Bill  to  Regulate  and  Improve  the  Civil  Service 
of  the  United  States,  as  approved.  Per  copy,  3  cts.  Per  100,  $1  50 

The  Civil  Service  of  Cities,  Police  and  Fire  Departments.  A 

Report  to  the  C.-S.  R.  A.  of  N.  Y.  made  by  request  of  the  State  Civil- 
Service  Commission.  Per  copy,  -  -  -  -  5  cts. 

What  has  been  done  in  New  York  and  may  be  done  elsewhere. 

Per  copy,  1  ct.  Per  100,  -  -  -  -  30  cts. 

The  Reform  of  the  Civil  Service.  Per  copy,  1  ct.  Per  too,  30  cts. 
What  is  the  Civil  Service?  (Card  for  distribution). 

Annual  Report  of  the  C.-S.  R.  A.  of  N.  Y.,  May,  1883.  Per  copy,  3  cts. 
The  same  for  1884  Per  copy,  -  -  -  -  3  cts. 

The  same  for  1885.  Per  copy,  -  -  -  3  cts. 

The  same  for  1886.  Per  copy,  3  cts. 

Some  Questions  for  Voters  to  Consider.  (Circular  for  distribution.) 
Constitution  and  By-Laws  of  New  York  Association. 

Also  a  few  copies  of  some  early  publications. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

Civil  Service  in  Great  Britain.  By  Dorman  B.  Eaton.  Per  copy.  25  cts. 
The  Competitive  Test.  By  Edward  M.  Shepard.  Per  copy,  5  cts. 

The  Meaning  of  Civil-Service  Reform.  By  Edward  O.  Graves', 
Per  copy,  -  -  -  -  -  -3  cts. 

Report  of  the  TJ.  S.  Civil- Service  Commission,  1884. 

The  same  for  1885- 
The  Same  for  1886. 

Report  of  the  N.  Y.  Civil-Service  Commission,  1884. 

The  same  for  1885. 

The  same  for  1886. 

Also  a  few  other  miscellaneous  publications. 

Orders  for  the  publications  will  be  filled  by  William  Potts,  Secretary, 
35  Liberty  St.,  New  York. 


PRESIDENT. 

GEORGE  WILLIAM  CURTIS. 


SECRETARY. 

WILLIAM  POTTS. 

TREASURER. 

IRA  BURSLEY. 


EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE. 


WM.  A.  AIKEN, 

CHARLES  J.  BONAPARTE, 
SILAS  W.  BURT, 

JOHN  JAY; 

A.  R.  MACDONOUGH, 

W.  W.  MONTGOMERY, 
SHERMAN  S.  ROGERS, 


WILLIAM  CARY  SANGER, 
CARL  SCHURZ, 

EDWARD  M.  SHEPARD, 
MOORFIELD  STOREY, 
EVERETT  P.  WHEELER, 
FREDERIC  W.  WHITRIDGE, 
MORRILL  WYMAN,  JR. 


The  formation  of  local  Associations  in  every  locality 
where  a  nucleus  can  be  found  is  much  to  be  desired,  and 
the  Secretary  of  the  League  will  be  glad  to  assist  any  move¬ 
ment  in  that  direction,  Each  Association,  when  formed, 
should  establish  an  official  connection  with  the  National 
League.  The  details  of  the  organization  having  been 
furnished  to  the  Executive  Committee  through  the  Secre¬ 
tary,  that  Committee  is  authorized  to  admit  the  association 
to  membership  in  the  League,  whereupon  it  is  entitled  to 
elect  a  member  of  the  General  Committee  and  a  represen¬ 
tative  Vice-President.  The  Secretary  should  thereafter  be 
kept  informed  of  the  progress  of  the  work,  and  of  changes 
of  officers  as  they  may  occur. 

Address  •  ' 

WILLIAM  POTTS, 

Secretary , 

‘  '  LN0*  35  LIBERTY  STREET,  NEW  YORK. 


